Is the debate on breast cancer screening overblown? This is a hot and controversial question that is now being answered in the affirmative.
There have been many headlines generated relating to the costs for mammograms. A number of groups have trumpeted their belief that to cut back on this type of screening will sacrifice women’s lives just to save a few dollars in health care costs. However this does not seem to be the driving force behind the recent announcement that women should forego annual mammograms. The reason that the US Preventive Services Task Force came out with their new mammogram screening guidelines is because it makes sense.
Cancers are now more understood than they were in the past. Indeed, research shows that many times abnormal collections of cells are corralled and eliminated by the body’s natural immune system. This means that many microscopic abnormalities do not need immediate surgical intervention. In addition to this fact it does not make sense for every woman to have annual mammograms because the percentage of cancers that are being discovered are quite small, especially when you consider the risks of such regular radiation exposure.
Is the debate on breast cancer screening overblown? This depends largely on whom you are asking, but there does seem to be some convincing reasons why the new guidelines should be integrated into national health care policies. Women who have pressing reasons, such as personal or familial history of breast cancer, could still continue with this routine screening. For most healthy females there seems to be no overwhelming amount of facts to prove that this practice is necessary in the war against this disease.
Really? So we stop screening so that when rationing comes it will already be a matter or course. You hacks for Obama don’t get screened and there will be few less of you. The revolution is coming.
@Marcus Evans:
Health care has ALWAYS been “rationed”. The insurance company has a fixed amount of money that it can pay out for health services, based on the money it is paid by customers (money doesn’t grow on trees). They should allocate that money for medical services in a way that leads to the longest life for their entire customer base (this isn’t just a social argument; as a business, they need to keep people alive and paying premiums). Thus they deny coverage for a 50 million dollar operation that would keep someone alive for one more week; instead they spend that enormous sum of money on things like blood-pressure medication, that keep 1000 people alive much longer. You can put your fingers in your ears and shout about “rationing”, but it’s simple math; and it’s been going on since long before any healthcare reform bills.
I tend toward liberal politics, but I *am* concerned about publicly-subsidized healthcare. That’s because we already have it. And there are legions of idiots who think that society should bankrupt itself to save their loved one. So they start screaming nonsense about “death panels” and vote like children that believe they can keep paying the same amount of money yet somehow get more medical services for it. Politicians respond and dig us deeper into the hole. That’s concerning to be sure, but I’m ok with it; that said, if someone isn’t ok with it, then they should be in favor of abolishing Medicare too. None of this hypocritical bullshit about how the government should be giving you money but not giving money to those other people.